RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed May 21 21:37:59 PDT 2008
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> This seems to be the knotty problem. Just how are we going to *use* PM in LFS?
> Both RPM and Debian package managers require writing a set of control files in
> order to create a package. Although it is possible to write dummy files
> containing only packaging information for pre-built files (and no building
> instructions), this is not how these tools are supposed to be used. I.e., I
> strongly object to this severe lobotomization. In this case, a simpler package
> management scheme is needed. However, in simple tar-based schemes, there is a
> trap in handling configuration files when upgrading a package.
> So: given that we still can't agree on the set of features to implement, I
> propose LFS to never have any sort of PM, and those who disagree with this "no
> PM" policy should start a fork right now.
That is an extreme reaction. My question was meant to discuss. Because I don't
have a good answer, I wanted to further that to try to understand the issues
better and possible solutions. Instead, I get a final conclusion that it can't
Your conclusion that "we still can't agree on the set of features to implement"
is *far* too premature.
I'm not sure whether I personally want to use PM or not, but I know others do
and PM is certainly something that distros do. For that reason, I think it
belongs in the book.
More information about the lfs-dev